COMP1911 or ENGG1811 (1 Viewer)

[cd285]

hey guys,

im first yr student doing commerce and engineering (mechanical), just want to know if im goin to be disadvantaged in anyway if i do computing for engineers rather than computing 1a. my excuse is that theres timetable clash if i do computing 1a.

any useful input is much appreciated,
cd

 

[Omie Jay]

from the handbook page (http://www.handbook.unsw.edu.au/undergraduate/programs/2010/3710.html):

And ONE of:
COMP1911 Computing 1A (6 UOC)
ENGG1811 Computing for Engineers (6 UOC)
ENGG1811 is recommended for the AERO, MANF and NAVL Plans but COMP1911 is an acceptable alternative.
COMP1911 is recommended for the MECH and MTRN Plans.

what classes are clashing? is it 2 lectures, or a lecture and a tute, or 2 tutes, ??

 

[cd285]

the tute is clashing with the friggin engg1100 course!

 

[Omie Jay]

oh... i think everyone had that problem.

talk to your faculty about it, or maybe another 09er who's doing mech eng can post about how they fixed it.

i think some engg1000 classes change halfway thru the semester, that happened with me, and so what was supposedly a clash wasnt actually a clash when you looked at each weeks timetable individually.

but talk to your faculty about it.

edit: if you're doing mech eng, then you should be doing math1131, phys1121, engg1000, and comp1911, and hundreds of others will be in the same boat as you.

 

[cd285]

thanks omie j

 

["Lee-.-Roy"]

computing for mech: comp1911 OR engg1811 (for specification purposes)

however beceause engg1811 is quite useless (learning excel in first 5 weeks then rest of the time on java) many would choose comp1911 instead.

if you're doing mechatronics even if its not compulsory then it would at least be highly recommended for you to do comp1911.

at the end of the day, as a mech student you will only use up to week 6 material (double for loops) for comp1911, but i guess it should give you a computing advantage in the long run.

dont bother with comp1917, ppl fail it hard =)

 

[henry08]

however beceause engg1811 is quite useless (learning excel in first 5 weeks then rest of the time on java) many would choose comp1911 instead.

The course outline says VBA, not Java?

 

[tommykins]

It's VBA, probably just made a blunder.

 

[Sokolov]

COMP1911 uses C while ENGG1811 uses VBA.

Different programming languages but similar concepts such as If-Then statements, logical operators, boolean, debugging, iterative processes, etc.

Either way, MATLAB is used in second year mathematical computing.

 

[henry08]

COMP1911 uses C while ENGG1811 uses VBA.

Different programming languages but similar concepts such as If-Then statements, logical operators, boolean, debugging, iterative processes, etc.

Either way, MATLAB is used in second year mathematical computing.

So why do maple in 1st year math then? Why not have matlab in 1st year you'd think?

 

[Omie Jay]

because first year math is a very general subject that many degrees have, whether it's engineering, or science, or comp sci, whereas engineering (and some other degrees) continues math in second year, while other degrees do not. i think some other engineering subjects also use matlab, not 100% sure though.

 

[Sokolov]

So why do maple in 1st year math then? Why not have matlab in 1st year you'd think?

Maple in 1st year focuses more on symbolic mathematics than actual programming.
If you enter an expression in Maple you will get a symbolic answer such as a polynomial.
If you evaluate an expression in MATLAB you will NOT get a symbolic answer, they are pretty much all numerical.
Despite that, MATLAB is more flexible because in reality you cannot always get analytical solutions.

e.g.
If you want to expand (x - 2)(x +3), MAPLE will return x² + x - 6.
MATLAB can't do that by itself, not even simple calculus like differentiating x².
MATLAB stands for MATrix LABoratory, assuming your knowledge of linear algebra is good enough you can use matrix algebra to do iterations, numerical integration, solving for roots of polynomials and numerical solutions to ODEs as examples of what I had to do with it.